posted at 2:21 pm on August 7, 2013 by Allahpundit

From ABC’s RICK KLEIN: “Mitt Romney did something interesting last night: He lent his voice to a policy debate that’s roiling his party in Congress. His speech last night, at a New Hampshire GOP fundraiser, included a surprise warning against those (hello, Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, and even Marco Rubio) threatening a government shutdown in an effort to deny funding to Obamacare. Romney won’t win many points with conservatives with an attack on the tea party’s favored legislative strategy, or a sliver of a defense of Obamacare. But he doesn’t have many points he could win with that crowd, post-election, anyway. More intriguing was his warning not to ‘cast an emotional vote, a protest vote, an anger vote’ in the 2016 primaries. He went on to say ‘there will only be one or perhaps two who could actually win the election in November.’ Romney didn’t name names. Of course, he didn’t have to.”

He also warned against trying to defund ObamaCare by shutting down the government, which is interesting just because him saying that obviously helps the tea partiers who support the idea much more than it does those who oppose it. Which Republicans who regard the shutdown as nutty, like Tom Coburn or McCain, think they’ll be more likely to persuade the base of that by pointing to the fact that Mitt Romney thinks it’s nutty too? All this does is give the Pauls and Cruzes new ammo to show grassroots righties that only the failed establishment old guard, personified by the party’s last nominee, think folding on the big defunding fight is wise. It’s strange to me that Romney doesn’t realize that. Maybe he just doesn’t care, but Dubya at least has the good sense to stay away from backing specific policy proposals for fear that the tainted Bush brand will be used to undermine them.

Iowa Rep. Steve King, whose hard line immigration rhetoric has angered some of his fellow Republicans and delighted Democrats eager to keep Hispanic voters in their fold, is quietly planning meetings with political activists in the early presidential primary state of South Carolina, CNN has learned…

If King is curious about seeking the Republican nomination in 2016, as his visit to South Carolina suggests, he would certainly face difficult odds, since no sitting member of the House has been elected president since James Garfield in 1880.

I wonder if the GOP establishment sees a King candidacy as a nightmare or an opportunity. Arguably, with the possible exception of Tom Tancredo, there’s no one who can do more damage singlehandedly to Republican bridge-building with Latinos by jumping into the race than him. The first question he gets at every debate will, invariably, have to do with what he said about illegals with “calves the size of cantaloupes” hauling drugs in the desert. He’ll defend his remarks, albeit maybe with some qualified apology, and inevitably some people in the audience will applaud him, inspiring the equally inevitable breathless headlines the next day, “GOP BACKS KING ON CONTROVERSIAL COMMENTS ON IMMIGRANTS.” Why is this an opportunity, then? Because the other candidates, Marco Rubio especially, will be itching to throw rhetorical roundhouses at him to signal their rejection. That’ll earn them some “Sistah Souljah” praise in the media, which will be useful to the nominee in the general. Which raises a bigger question: How much do the Republican candidates really want to talk about immigration in the primaries? There are obvious reasons why Rubio might not, but on the other hand, if the GOP’s going to re-brand for Latino voters in time for the general, they need to define themselves before the Democrats do it for them. Rubio may decide, paradoxically, that he’s better off long-term talking (carefully) about immigration reform in the primaries and trusting GOP voters to see his efforts on it as an electability bonus than keeping quiet and waiting until the general election to build his image as a Republican reformer.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Comments

They (the GOP insiders and/or elite) are already talking about “electability”.

Romney was “electable”. He lost soundly.

McCain was “electable”. He lost soundly.

I honestly don’t think it is possible for the GOP to nominate someone more middle of the road/mainstream than either of those two people.

I don’t think they actually understand what “electability” is. Electability means being able to win an election. These people have no understanding of how to win an election and should shut up and go away. Particularly Romney – who now claims he never even really wanted to run and/or be president.

Just shut up. Nobody cares what you think. We don’t respect you or like you or value your opinion. You are a non-entity. I held my nose to vote against Obama, but you did not do your part and try to win. You disgust me. You have harmed your country enough with you vain efforts to be the GOP nominee w/out any purpose or desire to win. Just go away.

Do you think it was a lack of anger that resulted in the 2010 elections? Conservative victories were fueled by voter anger. I’m angry as all, just give me someone that wants to win and has some conservative views. Sheesh!

Jay Cost, IIRC, had a great post mortem about the 2012 election. The bottom line is that what matters most in terms of electability in modern elections is much less about policy and much more about charisma and appeal. It’s a terribly sad commentary on what our nation has become, but I think that it is very hard to deny. He does make a strong point regarding policy however, basically stating that crazy can never win on a national scale.

He reminds those who think that some other candidate could have done better need to square some very simple logic. That being that a candidate who was too extreme to win the GOP nomination would have NO chance of winning independent voters. Romney did not lose because the base did not vote for him. He lost because he could not obtain the votes of the more independent segments of the GOP mainly due to a lack of charisma and style.

MJBrutus on August 7, 2013 at 2:48 PM

Meh.

Reagan was “crazy”
–Supply side economics – “voodoo economoics”

–Fire the ATC employees – “planes will start crashing”

–Tear down the wall – “diplomatic faux pas”

–evil empire – crazy

–star wars – crazy

–we win, they lose – crazy

–liberals are just wrong – crazy

Palin was crazy
–corporatism will sink the country – crazy

–Fannie Mae will be too expensive for taxpayers – chillbilly

etc, etc

So tell me what was “crazy” about Bush, Dole, Bush, Mcvain, Romney?

Read my lips? We can work with China after Tiannamen Square? … and so on all the way up to “we can fix ObamaCare”? SS is NOT a Ponzi Scheme? Vote for me cuz I can manage the Govt?

I know someone who was at this fundraiser and I did not get the impression that this is what she heard…but then she is not trying to diss anyone. She said that Romney said we should get behind someone and support them even if we do not agree with every single vote they made. The idea being that we needed to be unified. Fancy that, everyone knows that back stabbing, back biting and disinformation is a far better way to succeed than unity.

Just pointing out that Obama only won by a 2% margin…. and 96 million eligible American voters sat at home on the couch and didn’t vote at all… and a chunk of those couch-huggers were registered Republicans and conservatives.

No candidate can win an election of their constituency stays at home and doesn’t bother to vote.

Charisma is important for low information morons who wouldn’t know substance if it hit them upside the head. But at the same time, we need candidates who can articulate conservative principles and actually believe in it. Why do you think the base was desperately trying to find anyone other than Romney to hand the nomination to?

It’s a lesson the GOP establishment either refuses to learn or does understand but doesn’t want to accept since odds are most of them lean more progressive than conservative on most issues. But if they attempt the “most electable” nonsense in 2016 and saddle us with CRISTie or Rubio, rest assured they’ll not only lose for the third straight time, but it’ll likely be just as big a shellacking as they got in the last 2 elections.

Doughboy on August 7, 2013 at 3:02 PM

Ideally, we need someone who is both charismatic and can articulate. The last who could really do that was Reagan and we know how that turned out.

Unfortunately, Reagans are few and far between.

I’d like to give it a shot with a strong conservative as we’ve gone the “electable” RINO and that hasn’t worked out too well.

We can’t completely cater to the morons, but there are a lot of them out there and have to compensate appropriately, which means that the candidate will have to be shiny and cool as well as have some substance.

Just shut up. Nobody cares what you think. We don’t respect you or like you or value your opinion. You are a non-entity. I held my nose to vote against Obama, but you did not do your part and try to win. You disgust me. You have harmed your country enough with you vain efforts to be the GOP nominee w/out any purpose or desire to win. Just go away.

Monkeytoe on August 7, 2013 at 3:08 PM

Just as a follow up. Romney lost every election he stood for except governor of MA. While governor of Mass, he made a hash of it and did a lousy job and would have lost re-election, despite his liberal pandering.

And now he wants to tell other people how to win elections? This guy, who has been running for President for about 20 years and with unlimited funds, couldn’t win as dogcatcher but wants to lecture us?

Go away already! Just shut up and go away. You have outworn your welcome.

All evidence to the contrary, of course. An awful lot of people stayed home that an actual conservative would’ve brought to the polls.

Midas on August 7, 2013 at 3:00 PM

And the opposite is true, a lot of RINOs and GOPers of a more independent persuasion would have stayed home if an ‘actual conservative’ was the nominee…there’s no way to square that, unless what mjbrutus said, to out out there a very, very charismatic character from whichever side of the conservative spectrum that would bridge that gap through wide appeal and likeability…as things are now, I see none who fits that bill…

.
And the liberal commmies are laughing their asses off at this crap. They continue to succeed at splitting their enemy. And they’ve learned it easy to do.
.
As long as they can control their enemy, and keep them from fighting their tyranny and their incompetence – they win.
.
Again.

Just pointing out that Obama only won by a 2% margin…. and 96 million eligible American voters sat at home on the couch and didn’t vote at all… and a chunk of those couch-huggers were registered Republicans and conservatives.

No candidate can win an election of their constituency stays at home and doesn’t bother to vote.

And the opposite is true, a lot of RINOs and GOPers of a more independent persuasion would have stayed home if an ‘actual conservative’ was the nominee…there’s no way to square that, unless what mjbrutus said, to out out there a very, very charismatic character from whichever side of the conservative spectrum that would bridge that gap through wide appeal and likeability…as things are now, I see none who fits that bill…

jimver on August 7, 2013 at 3:11 PM

so what we aren’t going to win the northeast anyhow. So they pull an Anderson go third party, stay home. Doesn’t matter most of them live in places we aren’t going to win anyhow. Who cares if the dem wins NY by 80% instead of 70%?

Indeed. So if the GOP and conservative constituents want to win and election and seat a president… seems reasonable that they might well decide to get off the couch and go to the polls and vote for the candidate who ISN’T a Democrat.

Say what you will about Romney…nit pick about his policy, his demeanor, his appearance… but hands down the nation would have been better off with him than with another four years of Obama.

There are a lot of reasons why Mitt lost, but I don’t believe “he wasn’t conservative enough” is one of them. Really, how many voters were saying, “I really want a conservative president, but since Mitt is just a moderate, I’d rather just stay home and let Obama win”? I’m sure there were some, and there may even be some commenting in this thread, but enough to make the difference in the election?

in 08 and 12 Obama turned left, he fired up his base, he supported non moderate polices like same sex marriage, getting gays into the military, global warming, higher electric costs war on coal gun control etc this got his base the gays, the environmental wackos, the anti2nd folks to the polls. While the GOP went for the moderate voter. Guess who won.

If what Mitt says is true then Obama should never have won. What Obama did would be like a GOPer going all in on prized conservative polices.

There are obvious reasons why Rubio might not, but on the other hand, if the GOP’s going to re-brand for Latino voters in time for the general, they need to define themselves before the Democrats do it for them.

Then they should 1. Oppose amnesty by any name, 2. Support government-run healthcare.

But they shouldn’t do any of that. They shouldn’t re-brand anything. The problem with the GOP isn’t an ugly label. The problem with the GOP is the crap that’s in the can.

There are a lot of reasons why Mitt lost, but I don’t believe “he wasn’t conservative enough” is one of them. Really, how many voters were saying, “I really want a conservative president, but since Mitt is just a moderate, I’d rather just stay home and let Obama win”? I’m sure there were some, and there may even be some commenting in this thread, but enough to make the difference in the election?

J.S.K. on August 7, 2013 at 3:18 PM

no they were saying I’ll go with the devil I know instead of the devil I don’t.

The trouble with the lesser of two evils type of campaign is sometimes the voters decide you are the greater evil.

They (the GOP insiders and/or elite) are already talking about “electability”.

Romney was “electable”. He lost soundly.

McCain was “electable”. He lost soundly.

I honestly don’t think it is possible for the GOP to nominate someone more middle of the road/mainstream than either of those two people.

I don’t think they actually understand what “electability” is. Electability means being able to win an election. These people have no understanding of how to win an election and should shut up and go away. Particularly Romney – who now claims he never even really wanted to run and/or be president.

Just shut up. Nobody cares what you think. We don’t respect you or like you or value your opinion. You are a non-entity. I held my nose to vote against Obama, but you did not do your part and try to win. You disgust me. You have harmed your country enough with you vain efforts to be the GOP nominee w/out any purpose or desire to win. Just go away.

Monkeytoe on August 7, 2013 at 3:08 PM

Worth repeating with emphasis.

We had a candidate who didn’t want to make an even a marginal effort at winning.

He could’ve have changed the course of history if he had just been the slightest bit aggressive on Benghazi during the last debate – He couldn’t even accomplish that little feat.

That mistake should cost him his soapbox, he needs to bet the H___ out if the way and let someone try something for once.

So anyone think Mitt wouldn’t have signed on to gun control, amnesty, global warming, He wouldn’t have evolved on SSM just like the other rINOs in DC? You think Mitt would have repealed obamacare, hell he doesn’t even want to defund it let alone repeal it. So explain to me again why Mitt would be better on the issues than Obama?

so what we aren’t going to win the northeast anyhow. So they pull an Anderson go third party, stay home. Doesn’t matter most of them live in places we aren’t going to win anyhow. Who cares if the dem wins NY by 80% instead of 70%?

unseen on August 7, 2013 at 3:14 PM

Ohio, NE, Co, Fl are not northeast, are they…So, according to you, which places should win then, obviously the ones that we win traditionally aren’t enough to give us the next non-Dem president, aren’t they??

Well, at least the guy had the decency to admit that he’s the last one who should be giving advice.

Otherwise, this sums my sentiments up perfectly:

Just shut up. Nobody cares what you think. We don’t respect you or like you or value your opinion. You are a non-entity. I held my nose to vote against Obama, but you did not do your part and try to win. You disgust me. You have harmed your country enough with you vain efforts to be the GOP nominee w/out any purpose or desire to win. Just go away.

Yes. The problem is career politicians who value remaining a member of that elite club known as the political class ( note that as a single class both parties vary little in actual policy and result by the time all of the ‘bipartisan’ agreements have been reached and the last step in the political kabuki has been performed)above fulfilling their duty to act as our proxies in Washington DC and honor their duly sworn oath to do just that and be faithful public servants to the citizenry. Rather than endlessly trying to dictate to the citizens manipulate the law, and preserve their jobs and life- styles at all costs.

However, if we are talking about electing a chief executive, a president, we are reduced to voting for an ideological preference and pretending that it will make a difference in the final outcome of events in terms of the nation and its citizenry.

Have I mentioned that I favor a two term limit across the board for any political office?

You know Willard, you went out of your way to appear nice, competent and unthreatening in 2012. Not setting your pretty “hair on fire”, remember that? And you were beaten by somebody who made the words “binders full of women”, which came from your mouth, part of his stump speech. Do you remember the veep debate and how Grampa Shining wiped the floor with your mamas-boy running mate?

Have you ever considered that hitting hard, fueling resentment or anger and show some passion, might have gone a long way? Or are you just too comfortable in that typically Republican crouch, in which our guys worry more about not tripping over their own tongues than going on the offensive and winning?

Ohio, NE, Co, Fl are not northeast, are they…So, according to you, which places should win then, obviously the ones that we win traditionally aren’t enough to give us the next non-Dem president, aren’t they??

jimver on August 7, 2013 at 3:23 PM

We lost FL, OH CO with a moderate. see this is what I can’t understand. We tried it your way and LOST why don’t you admit you lost. You want to win OH, CO, FL ? run a freaking conservative. If you want to play nice with the NY-Dc media bubble and pick issues that the northeast likes you will lose. The rest of the country can’t stand the liberals in NY-DC. Every election I hear about how the moderate GOPer is going to win PA. You know the last GOPer to win PA? Yeah it was Reagan. How did he win it, he got the right leaning dems to the polls. To vote for him, he didn’t go for the moderates. You know the last GOPEr to win NY yeah it was Reagan. The last GOper to win CA? Yeap Reagan. You want to expand the states we win? you give the people a reason to go vote for you.

Leadership and loyal opposition to 0 of course. 0 Has created a huge vacuum. Many folks believe it or not verbaluce are disappointed with 0. Its not just a one side of the isle or other thing. If Cruz was to enter the race for POTUS I would vote for him. You see verbaluce 0 will go down as the worst POTUS ever. I think though you seem to adore many things he does, you too will through time come to realize the destruction caused to this Nation by Liberals. I can give you one example, though there are many. You and yours took the finest system of health care and delivery ever created and trashed it. DeMint and Cruz are out trying to gain support for defunding the 0care monstrosity you have created. Ask your doctor about Epic some time verbaluce. Listen to the response. Of course you may be one of the leftists whom crave Single Payer. So, most likely the good doctors advice will fall on deaf partisan ears.

Time for Romney to take up whittling, maybe banjo and feeding pigeons from the park bench.

He had my support as the nominee but quickly showed the unwillingness to call out Zero for the dictator he is reminding me of McVain’s unwillingness to call out Zero as the hustler, ACORN failure and Harvard Affirmative-action tourist he is. GHW Bush also missed a grand opportunity to call BS on See-BS attempt to pimp Clintoon as a “changed man” reformed pre-vert (Shrillary bobbing her head, on cue) as presstitute Steve Kroft tried on “60 Minutes.”

Not that Gingrich would have been the best option… but his debate willingness to practically call out Scott Pelley and that CNBC dingbat as Democrat media whores made the press Lefties uncomfortable. Romney should have called out media whore Mount Crowley as just that the instant her collusion with Ogabe was attempted.

And the opposite is true, a lot of RINOs and GOPers of a more independent persuasion would have stayed home if an ‘actual conservative’ was the nominee…there’s no way to square that, unless what mjbrutus said, to out out there a very, very charismatic character from whichever side of the conservative spectrum that would bridge that gap through wide appeal and likeability…as things are now, I see none who fits that bill…

jimver on August 7, 2013 at 3:11 PM

This is the same argument we constantly have (and they have on the left as well). Can a “conservative” candidate win? but that isn’t really the question. the question isn’t can a conservative candidate win – I don’t think anyone can argue that a charismatic conservative like Paul Ryan couldn’t win in the right circumstances.

the real question is can a red-meat, bomb-thrower win. The answer to that is probably not. But I disagree heartily with the idea that nobody could have done better than Romney in 2012 (not that you said that, it was in other comments). I think almost any of the other candidates would have matched Romney’s performance and a few would likely have performed better on election day. All of Romney’s fight was against fellow republicans and conservatives in the primary. He had no fight against obama. None at all. Someone a little more conspiratorial minded than me would almost say that he was a stalking horse for Obama.

He had one good debate performance. Other than that, his campaign was almost invisible.

However, if we are talking about electing a chief executive, a president, we are reduced to voting for an ideological preference and pretending that it will make a difference in the final outcome of events in terms of the nation and its citizenry.

Wow.

Have I mentioned that I favor a two term limit across the board for any political office?

thatsafactjack on August 7, 2013 at 3:27 PM

Dire would argue that elections are term limits, and better, because they are optional term limits in the hands of the voters.

I think he’s wrong. I mean flatly, demonstrably. He forced me to think it over. :) The real electorate and the way it works is not like the ideal, politicians can and do become entrenched, and the only way to remove them (barring a dead girl, a live boy, prison, retirement, or death — or in Illinois or Louisiana, some combination of these) is by force.

Soooooo….. what Romney is saying is that it is better to keep a LOSER who will end up destroying the country in office than replace him with someone who represents the people, has integrity/morals/ethics, and who actually wants to live up to his oath of office but someone who might be defeated by a better known Democrat who is going to try to win anyway by election fraud & buying votes with a pleathora of tax-payer-funded ‘freebies’?!

this how you win. you start with a conservative who the base knows is a conservative, That conservative fakes moving to the middle during the general election to appease the moderate wusses, the base allows that candidate to move to the middle because they know the truth of who that person is.

this what the dems do every time they start with a liberal then they try to move to the middle. Sometimes like Obama and Clinton it works sometimes like Kerry and Dukakis it doesn’t.

The gop starts with a liberal and tries to move him to the middle /right to get the base to buy-in. It hardly ever wins. Only time in my life time it worked was in 2000 and that needed a SCOTUS ruling to finally decide the outcome.

I have even taken under consideration returning to the days when the Senators were selected by the State legislature. The State legislature is more responsive to the citizens. That said I have always been against term limits until just recently. Now I am leaning towards them. Strongly.

Yup, pick a flexibly principled RINO like me so that when you win you can do all the stuff the other side wants you to do.
Another GOP elitist who thinks he still has credibility with the common conservative man.
ORomeycare and now those open borders–who needs to fight liberals when our candidates come out waving the white flag?

He had one good debate performance. Other than that, his campaign was almost invisible.
Monkeytoe on August 7, 2013 at 3:37 PM

.
You are way over thinking 2012.
.
Obama was Too Black to Fail. The media made sure he would not fail.
.
And maybe, if Romney had paid his taxes and hadn’t killed that lady with cancer……well maybe it’sa a different story.

Dire would argue that elections are term limits, and better, because they are optional term limits in the hands of the voters.

I think he’s wrong. I mean flatly, demonstrably. He forced me to think it over. :) The real electorate and the way it works is not like the ideal, politicians can and do become entrenched, and the only way to remove them (barring a dead girl, a live boy, prison, retirement, or death — or in Illinois or Louisiana, some combination of these) is by force.

So, basically, go term limits!

Also, LSU.

Axe on August 7, 2013 at 3:40 PM

I say split the difference and just reduce the time between elections. Make the house elected once per year senate every 3 and POTUs every 2.

Most of the backroom crap like Amnesty will never see the light of day in that circumstance. most of the crpa happens in off-year election years. So the answer is get rid of the off year.

There are a lot of reasons why Mitt lost, but I don’t believe “he wasn’t conservative enough” is one of them. Really, how many voters were saying, “I really want a conservative president, but since Mitt is just a moderate, I’d rather just stay home and let Obama win”? I’m sure there were some, and there may even be some commenting in this thread, but enough to make the difference in the election?

J.S.K. on August 7, 2013 at 3:18 PM

That isn’t how it works. The issue is multifold –

1) first it’s about choice. Why change from the current president if you are really offering no reason to? When you run as milquetoast, middle of the road guy, without any firm beliefs or philosophy – why should the public change ships (particularly when the media created the image [falsely] that Obama was already a middle-of-the-road guy. A candidate needs to offer a stark choice.

2) it’s about demonstrating a vision, a reason to vote FOR you rather than against the other guy. If you have no core philosophy, you won’t have a vision or a reason to vote FOR you. Arguing “I’m a good manager” doesn’t cut that bill.

So, sure, nobody was consciously saying “I’d vote for someone more conservative than Romney, but instead will vote for Obama”. the subconscious thinking was “why vote against Obama, what reason has Romney given me to vote for him and against Obama?” And the answer was, none.

the “moderates” that the GOP insiders/elite push on us as “electable” have no core. No raison d’etre.

Part of charisma in a leader is the leader knowing who he is and what he stands for. Particularly a political leader. Someone with no core philosophy – who thinks that they can just tinker with everything and “find a middle ground” – can’t provide that. And it shows.

Does that mean the candidate has to be ultra-conservative to win? No. But an empty suit is rarely going to win – at least not for our side of the aisle.

For the DNC, the media can push an empty suit (a la Obama). They will create an impression of a good leader who has a vision and hide any negative info. But we face the opposite winds, which is why our candidate has to stand for something.

Why don’t some of the people taking cheap shots at Romney look at their own history? How many losers have they backed? Have they ever backed a candidate who could win a nomination? Probably a few… And when they lost..was it the fault of the candidate or was it the fault of the media, or the establishment or the Rinos?…it is always someone else when the purity police lose.

Romney did not take any cheap shots at anyone here..it is too bad that there are people on the right who too petty and self absorbed to be decent with the man.

Can anyone even remember any central theme(s) from Romney’s campaign?
bw222 on August 7, 2013 at 3:02 PM

Yes. Romney wanted to expand foreign trade ( Obama had signed 3 foreign trade agreements while China had signed 15 and were negotiating another 20), bring home jobs to begin to put the 20 plus million Americans unemployed and underemployed back to work, also to that end… NO AMNESTY –enforce the law and not reward people for breaking the law “Turn off the magnates for illegal immigration.” and implement national E-Verify immediately, and bio metric ID and enforcement for visa overstays. Secure the borders as as matter of national security. Israel treated as our ally, support our allies abroad, re-establish our standing with the UK and Europe,policy aimed at containment in the middle east, with immediate policy of basing foreign aid contingent on proven results first. Reinvigorate the energy exploration, development, and production sectors in this nation, including immediately signing Keystone XL, repeal Obamacare…the list is long… do you need more?

The gop starts with a liberal and tries to move him to the middle /right to get the base to buy-in. It hardly ever wins. Only time in my life time it worked was in 2000 and that needed a SCOTUS ruling to finally decide the outcome.

unseen on August 7, 2013 at 3:42 PM

I often wonder if W Bush would have been more conservative overall if 9/11 had not happened. I think he moved left on domestic policy because he wanted to try and get the left/democrats to stay with him in the War on Terror.

I know he was never a rock-ribbed conservative, but I think his instincts were initially more conservative than he ended up.

The GOP power structure is still mostly the old-school Rockefeller republican types. So, they are still trying to keep the conservative wing of the party down. that is why they put forth every effort to get an establishment candidate out ahead in the primaries. And why they often support liberal candidates over conservative candidates even in deep red states/districts.
But, the conservative wing continues to grow and as they retire /die off, we will have a bigger bench and better outcomes.

I had that discussion with Dire, too, and I pointed out, just as you have, that when the electorate stays home and fails to exercise their power to effectively enforce term limits those who do vote are generally those who are afraid of change for their own reasons and vote to maintain the status quo… hence entrenched multi-term politicians who are more interested in their life style and membership in the political class than serving their constituents.

When politicians become entrenched they spend most of their time in DC, they send their children to school there, it is where their circle of friends are and their career network lies, they visit their ‘home’ states on vacation and when they wish to be re-elected. They have no real interest in, or connection to, the constituents who elected them other than currying them for re-election next term.

We lost FL, OH CO with a moderate. see this is what I can’t understand. We tried it your way and LOST why don’t you admit you lost.

unseen on August 7, 2013 at 3:32 PM

Lol :) I don’t admit we lost, I watch every day this inept president raising ineptitude to the level of state policy, and you think I don’t admit we lost? :) There’s nothing that pains me more than to witness and experience all this, but the problem is we’d have lost either way, and that was exactly the point of my comment…the nation is in the mood for more obamanomic obviously, not less…besides, with so many conservatives (or from that line of persuasion) staying on the side because Romney was not the perfect or pure candidate, and make no mistake, I’m the first to admit that it would have been the case too if a so con was the nominee…it goes to show two things, that our side doesn’t want to win that badly, and what I said already, that this silly nation couldn’t have enough of the ill-conceived obama policies…saddest thing is that nothing this will be true in 2016 too, with Billary poised to make history as the first female whatever…

I think what is relevant, what needs discussion, is the fact that if people want to defeat the opponent, they first have to participate.

Many of us were less than happy that Romney was the nominee. I think most of us would love to have had, and to have, that ‘perfect’ candidate.

Still, those of us who didn’t want another four years of Obama went to the polls and did our best to see that Obama was defeated. I recall conversations with many voters here and elsewhere who said they were voting against Obama more than for Romney.

Unfortunately, too many conservatives and Republicans of any other stripe stayed home and Obama’s constituents didn’t. It’s really that simple.

I’m more interested in reality than conjecture, and, just so you are aware, any ‘theme’ is comprised of … policy.
thatsafactjack on August 7, 2013 at 3:57 PM

Reality? Reality is Mitt lost

you still won’t face reality. Mitt lost. the moderate/left leaning liberal lost to a full blown Marxist. that’s reality. We lost CO, FL, OH to a Marxist. How’s reality looking care to admit to reality yet.

And A theme has nothing to do with policy. themes are overarching concepts that give people a general sense of what you want to do.

“Hope and change” was theme. It had zero policy in it.

“Morning in America” was a theme it had zero policy in it.

Policy is totally different form policy the two are divorced. the theme gets the “low information voter” Policy gets the high information voter. they are directed at two different groups and they have two different functions.

Excellent point. It is, indeed, criminal that they should exempt themselves from the laws they pass that apply to the rest of the nation and this is likely the penultimate example of how toxic that perpetual membership in the singular political class is to the rule of law and the citizenry.

Lefty’s love to pretend to like former GOP politicians. They now claim to like Reagan. Reagan was even more despised at the time by leftists than W was during his tenure.

You like to believe that Reagan would be “moderate” today because his policies moved the country so far right that he now looks moderate by comparison to where conservatives are today.

But that is pure revisionism. Reagan was as conservative as he could be at the time and in the circumstances he found himself. He pushed as far as was politically possible at that time. and at the time, the left thought he was a crazy, illiterate, right-wing loon.

If he were alive and running today, because of where the country is today and what is possible now politically versus then (remember, the U.S. conservative movement was nascent when Reagan was president) it is most likely that Reagan would be to the right of Sara Palin. Now, I can’t prove that, just like you can’t prove he would not be. But the evidence – his writings, speeches, etc., support my theory much more than your fantasy of a “moderate” Reagan.

I just talked to the lady I know that was at this fundraiser. I sent her this link. She said that no press was there and that she does not remember Mitt Romney saying much of what is posted here. His message was that we should move on and work for good candidates. Is there any way to actually know if this post is true? I am just wondering.

the real question is can a red-meat, bomb-thrower win. The answer to that is probably not. But I disagree heartily with the idea that nobody could have done better than Romney in 2012 (not that you said that, it was in other comments). I think almost any of the other candidates would have matched Romney’s performance and a few would likely have performed better on election day. All of Romney’s fight was against fellow republicans and conservatives in the primary. He had no fight against obama. None at all. Someone a little more conspiratorial minded than me would almost say that he was a stalking horse for Obama.

He had one good debate performance. Other than that, his campaign was almost invisible.

Monkeytoe on August 7, 2013 at 3:37 PM

I don’t disagree with the points you make in your comment…as for who would have done better than Romney (or if anyone would have), it’s counterfactual and a bit hard to quantify that at this point without infusing a huge dose of subjectivism…you said that in your opinion a few would have performed better than R on election day, possibly, or even likely, but better enough to win?? Again, I guess we’ll never know…and I agree that Romney almost sytemztically shied away from attacking Obama on his ill-coonceived policies, and I have no idea why…I guess because he doesn’t bave a good enough political instinct to win, in general, and he relied too much (or actually entirely) on his campaign team to make it hoppen…at times it appeared as his input to his campaign was 0 or that he didn’t even want to fight & win this…

True many of us tabled our apprehensions about Mitt and voted for him. I heard someone refer to him as the lesser of two evils. Still an evil however. As is the case with the government. I do not ever expect to see the perfect candidate. Nor would I want to me thinks. As I stated on QOTD a few back. I am a Reagan Democrat, Republican, Conservative, Libertarian leaning Indy at this point. I am just looking for the pol who looks to make government smaller. Not bigger. I may have no opportunity for this at the rate things are going. Next go round if the GOPe stifles folks of the cut, I will sit out. I am fortunate in that I have the ability to do so if needed.

That said I have always been against term limits until just recently. Now I am leaning towards them. Strongly.

Bmore on August 7, 2013 at 3:43 PM

Without going so far as to require my asbestos underwear — there has never been an entirely informed electorate, there will never be an entirely informed electorate, and if you are going to create a structure for government where a permanent aristocracy will not form, you will have to take the real electorate into account. More, that’s not a failing of some kind — not enough pamphlets — but part of the regular social behavior of people.

^ Where I’m at now.

Look at everything AP is talking about up there. It’s crazy making. It’s right and normal for election talk, but crazy making still. It’s about appearance and brand, about selling image and the role of the media in creating and destroying image. And he’s not talking about a bloody pop band — he’s talking about how the GOP might manipulate its way into an election victory. The conversation was kicked off by the last man we tried to give the power of the Presidency, and the people we’re talking about are the ones making the laws that determine which of us lives and which of us dies. Brand? Really? :) Aight.

We don’t talk about policy when we talk about elections, whose policy is better, and why. Never anymore. Always the media, et al. Bluegill was giving hair tips the other day here on the boards. And rightly — good hair is more important in winning elections than understanding the 4th.

I disagree with Jackie and most of you guys about who’s to blame for Obama. I maintain it was the people that voted for Obama, not anyone who didn’t vote. And those Obama voters are built in (I’m beginning to believe). And we need protection from them (I’m beginning to think). I should point out Jack could just as easily substitute my Obama voters with stay-at-home non-voters and reach the same conclusion — just seems indirect to me. Anyway, protection, in part — Term limits.

That’s full circle. :) I’ll quit typing.

I say split the difference and just reduce the time between elections. Make the house elected once per year senate every 3 and POTUs every 2.

Most of the backroom crap like Amnesty will never see the light of day in that circumstance. most of the crpa happens in off-year election years. So the answer is get rid of the off year.

Unfortunately, too many conservatives and Republicans of any other stripe stayed home and Obama’s constituents didn’t. It’s really that simple.

thatsafactjack on August 7, 2013 at 4:03 PM

The polling doesn’t really support this. It wasn’t the politically active conservatives who stayed home, but the more mushy GOP registered voters.

And, most of the fault for that (outside of the general responsibility of each individual to participate in voting) lies with Romney. He a) did not excite anyone to vote for him and you are only going to get these marginal voters if they get excited to vote for you and b) he had a lousy, lousy almost non-existent get-out-the-vote effort.

When people talk about a “base election” they aren’t really talking about the actively engaged, passionate base. they are talking about the marginal voters who are registered in the party but who vote irregularly. Who need 10 phone calls and even a van stopping by their house to get them off their arse and to the polls.

Obama won on the strength of his get-out-the-vote effort, not because passionate conservatives stayed home.